Editors' notes

Related Documents

Site Navigation

Editorial Comment Upon the Effect of an Audience

Floyd Henry Allport

There are a few points of interest in a comparison of the results of the
foregoing study with other investigations. With the kind permission of Dr. Gates
these suggestions are added herewith.

It has been pointed out above that the originally superior subjects are on
the whole those most unfavorably affected by the audience. If we compare the
results of the highest and lowest subjects in the "audience" group, not with
equivalent classes in the control group, but with each other, the differences
dependent upon original ability stand out vividly. The following table presents
this comparison from the data given.

INFLUENCE OF THE AUDIENCE WITH REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUAL
DIFFERENCE OF ABILITY

Test

Average Improvement in Terms of Test
Scoring Unit

Percent of Subjects who Improved

Highest 8 subjects

Lowest 8 subjects

Highest 8 subjects

Lowest 8 subjects

Coordination

1.5

5.5

63

88

Color-Naming

1.9

2.9

75

88

Analogies

-5.4

12.5

25

100

Word-Naming

-2.6

1.4

37

63

(343)

It will be seen that in every case, both in average improvement and per cent
who improved, the lowest eight subjects gained more than the highest through the
influence of the audience. The difference is striking in the per cent of
subjects showing improvement in the tests of analogies and word-naming. In two
cases the average of the highest group was actually lowered in the period under
observation by the audience. It is true that the lowest subjects of the
control group tend to show the same superiority in improvement after the
rest
period. This tendency, however, is not nearly so marked as in the other
case. In "average improvement" it occurs in only three of the four tests, while
in "per cent who improved" it occurs in only two tests. No doubt these results
in the control group may be explained by the fact that the poorer subjects were
those who were at first unfavorably affected by working in a group; but who
after a period of habituation were spurred to greater effort by the sights and
sounds of those working about them.

But notwithstanding this situation in the control group, the quantitative
difference between the improvement of the lowest as compared with the highest
subjects in the control group and the corresponding improvement in the audience
group seems to indicate that in the latter the audience itself affects the
inferior individuals more favorably than it does the superior.

Other investigators, such as Mayer, Moede, and the present writer have found
a frequent inverse correlation between original ability and tendency to improve
under the influence, not of an audience, but of the "co-working" group itself.
That is, working together tends to benefit the work score of the slower
reactors; more than it does that of the quicker reactors, as measured in comparison with work done alone. This is particularly true when the
setting involves competition, a condition no doubt true to some extent of all
co-active performance. I have elsewhere interpreted this phenomenon as due
largely to differences of rapidity of stimulations from the work of the quicker
and slower workers, respectively, combined with the rivalry incentive. We have
from Dr. Gates' study the interesting suggestion that the presence of
inactive onlookers also may spur the slowest workers, while it ha little
influence (and sometimes a deleterious one) upon the speed of the more rapid. It
may be that the audience renders the slower workers more conscious of their
slowness, and increases their incentive to rival, and perhaps excel, their
fellow workers.

It should be borne in mind that working in a group has been repeatedly found
to stimulate an increase in quantity of indi-

(344) -vidual output. No doubt such co-working in the fairly large groups of
Dr. Gates' experiment had already raised the level of effort to a point much
nearer the physiological maximum than would have been the case if the
individuals had been tested alone. Under such circumstances the audience may
have had the effect in some cases of over-stimulating and impairing muscular
coördination and mental work (cf. Triplett's findings upon "over-rivalry" in
children). In other words we have here the resultant of two social influences,
fellow-workers and an observing audience, rather than the isolated effect of the
latter condition. It might be worth while to repeat Dr. Gates' method using
solitary individuals, in one set of trials working wholly unobserved, and in
another set working before an audience.

For references bearing upon the above suggestions consult the following:

Notes

The original published version of this document is in the public domain. The
Mead Project exercises no copyrights over the original text.

This page and related Mead Project pages constitute the personal web-site
of Dr. Lloyd Gordon Ward (retired), who is responsible for its content.
Although the Mead Project continues to be presented through the
generosity of Brock University, the contents of this page do not reflect
the opinion of Brock University. Brock University is not responsible for
its content.

Fair Use Statement:

Scholars are permitted to reproduce this material for personal use.
Instructors are permitted to reproduce this material for educational use by
their students.

Otherwise, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, for the purpose of profit or personal benefit, without written permission from the Mead Project. Permission is granted for inclusion of the electronic text of these pages, and their related images in any index that provides free access to its listed documents.